2 comments

Having just finished ‘The Final Call’ and with my non-refundable 800 Euro Colombia return ticket cancelled in light of the reconfirmation of the utterly anti-social and irresponsible behavioural aspect of discretionary airtravel, I turned to the travel section of the guardian to vent my feelings about the usual fare offered there, only to find that you can’t comment on contributions such as:

“Having always felt it was unconscionable that safari in Africa remains the preserve of wealthy whites and tourists, I was also keen to stay in places that had a social conscience and were not blithely indifferent to the plight of the local community.” by Clemency Burton-Hill.

Can you confirm that the Guardian editors have a deliberate policy of not allowing comment on these articles in order to exclude the type of comments Burton-Hill’s reference to “social conscience” would invite in this context?

To be honest, I’m not sure what the policy is regarding switching on the comment facility. I imagine it is done according to whether the editors believe it is a subject people will want to debate. There’s also the issue of whether they have enough moderators available to cover the various commentable (is that a word?) articles up on the site at any given moment. (I think the comment facilities switch off automatically after three days.) It’s not my call, but I could see the attraction of being able to comment on a travel article, especially if the reader has been there too and has extra tips/advice to add. Or, indeed, wants to put forward a view such as yours. But until that day, there’s the ‘I’ve Been There’ section and the Travel Blog. (Or the Observer’s Escape section has a letters page, I think.)